Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: megapixel
5 megapixel - 14 (3.9%)
10 megapixel - 67 (18.8%)
15 megapixel - 91 (25.6%)
20 megapixel - 60 (16.9%)
25 megapixel - 47 (13.2%)
30 megapixel - 18 (5.1%)
35 megapixel - 59 (16.6%)
Total Voters: 29

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: megapixel  (Read 26999 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #20 on: September 01, 2005, 01:05:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am not talking about image quality vs. pixel resolution (of course more pixels make finer images). I am saying there is no limit to the size of print that can be made from a file. A bad print at 8x10 will look exactly as bad at 30x40 given the same ratio of print size to viewing distance. (Of course, if you stick your nose up to a good print, it will look bad.)
Says who? So what?

Of course you can print any file any size you want, but when selling those prints to the general public, you have to take into account typical home viewing conditions, and that does impose a limit to the maximum size one can print a file and still maintain a reputation for good print quality. Dismissing that practical reality as a "myth" is completely foolish and ignorant.

Quote
BTW, film manufactures don't just stick any old lens on a camera and take a snap.

Nor does Phil Askey of DPReview. Read the fine print and you'll notices he uses primes with a good reputation for sharpness so that the limiting factor is primarily the camera sensor/AA filter, not the lens. So do other reputable testers.
Logged

BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2005, 07:22:01 PM »
ReplyReply

you don't have anything else to do?


I like to have 1billion,,What about you?





BlasR
Logged

Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2005, 09:27:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
problem is my choice isn't there. my goal is the largest print i do.. 30x40" @ 240 dpi.. which is about 70Mp

(4x5 replacement). whatever the camera.. i'd still like to be able to attache it to the back of my 4x5 field camera
"Ditto."
Logged

Peter Simmons
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2005, 10:14:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I am OK with 5mp as I don't print large prints. What I am more interested in is dynamic range. Everyone is focused on pixel count - what about bit depth? I am waiting for the sensor that can match the eye brain combination of about 15 F stops.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2005, 12:17:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting link.

If you are doing individual photo site processing then you could measure the time it takes to 'fill' an individual site and/or count the number of times a site fills during the exposure.

Shutter speed could be set for the darkest area of the frame (as long as you freeze subject motion) and even the brightest portion of the frame would not be blown out.
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2005, 07:06:03 PM »
ReplyReply

As any reader of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy will know the answer to the question is 42.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2005, 03:14:24 AM »
ReplyReply

For something that has to reasonably easy to backback, medium format digital would be the size and weight limit and something on the order of 30+ Mpixels would be the reasonable maximum before pushing the resolution limits of available lenses too hard.

So, though I'd like around 50 Mpixels and lenses to match that to rival 4x5 film quality, 30+ is probably the practical limit that would do me any good.  Even that would only be tempting (given the huge cost) if the sensor had the 12 stop dynamic range of a 22MP p25 back.  It's a race against time.  Will I live long enough in a state of good health and fitness to see a 30+ MP MF digital system I can afford?  I would bet yes.  I figure 5 years max, maybe as little as 2.
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2005, 08:32:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I've seen prints like you describe done from 4x5 or 8x10 film scans, but are you suggesting results like this from 35mm film?  Galen Rowell is perhaps generally considered to have squeezed the absolute best possible quality out of 35mm film scans, but his prints don't look quite so super great in a room that also has David Muench prints from 4x5.

Having shot and scanned a LOT of 35mm slides in my day, and having seen a lot of prints from various formats, I'd say that 35mm slide scans rivalling 20+ MPixel MF backs is just flat out impossible.  You can scan at any detail you want, but for 35mm film beyond 8 Mpixels (absolute max) you're just scanning grain.
Logged
Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2005, 09:38:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Given that the move to affordable medium quality audio equipment started 40+ years ago we might not be surprised that its now somewhat of a mature market.

And computers are, IMO, getting to the same point after about 20 years of development.  Outside of a few uses such as gaming and editing large photo files the non-professional user has no huge reason for buying bigger and better.  Most people that I know only buy a bigger/better because their old machine is worn out and the entry level offerings are bigger/better than the machine that they're replacing.

Furthermore I think we're rapidly reaching that point with digital cameras.  Lots of people have realized that they have no real use for anything more than 5-8 megs.  The folks still wanting more resolution are generally the large print makers.  And that's a very small portion of the market.

The film market was quite happy with 35 mm film for most uses.  We've now got sub-$1kUS dSLRs that give that resolution.  I suspect that most folks will tend to settle into the 8-12 meg zone.  

But because more pixels can be derived from a half-frame sensor I suspect we'll see some medium priced high rez cameras for larger printing.
Logged
williamrohr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2005, 04:02:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Try this simple test ... take your best, sharpest lens on your highest resolution camera, put on an appropriate lens shade and carefully adjust the lighting .. and take a picture.  Now without changing anything, remove the lens shade and shine a light from the side towards the camera to introduce lens flare (but not significantly alter the exposure values) and thereby lower the contrast of the picture (those of us old enough to use slide copiers had devices that did just that to adjust contrasty slides).  The results are drastically different and you haven't done anything to change the "pixel resolution".  The point I am trying to make is that a survey about how many pixels people want is very interesting and useful (especially to camera company marketing departments) but we also need to explore what are the characteristics that make an image made with one camera more pleasing and different than another when they have the same pixel count ... and how much do people recognize that difference and want that incorporated in the next generation of cameras.  One of the reasons scanning backs make such incredible images is that they measure each of the RGB colors AT EACH PIXEL LOCATION and avoid the mathematical interpolation.  Just compare a rendition of a chrome or glass object done with relatively similar resolution scanning back vs. our current 35 mm sensors .. they are very different for reasons that are not directly attributable to pixel count.  In the future the answer may be a sensor that captures the broadest amount of raw photon information and we use the computer to "develop" the image.  If such a sensor exists, information theory tells us today's "pixel count" will probably be enough.
      I apologize if these ramblings seem off topic, but I find I have spent an ever increasing amount of money chasing higher and higher resolution products that in the end create great pictures but ones that lack a certain "snap" of some of my older technology gear. I wonder if others feel the same and feel this forum might be a good place to capture the issue Huh
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 31, 2005, 10:45:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think there are two myths that seem prevalent in imaging. Pixel resolution (or film format) limits maximum print size. And pixel resolution equils resolving power (either with a digital camera or scanner). Both are false.
You're off base with your characterization of the first "myth". Pixel dimensions certainly affect how large one can print given a specific viewing condition and minimum acceptable quality standard. When you redefine the viewing condition the largest acceptable print size will change, but whatever the viewing condition, a well-processed 2000x3000 pixel image file will always be able to be printed much larger than a 400x600 pixel image file and still meet the minimum acceptable quality standard for the viewing condition.

Quote
While there is no method of determining the resolving power of a CCD, it is not equil to the pixel resolution.

The first part of this statement is demonstrably false. The resolving power of a CCD or CMOS imaging device can be measured the same way resolving power is measured using film. If you doubt this, go to DPReview and read some of the camera reviews.

You are correct that pixel resolution only represents a maximum limit to possible image detail, and digital imagers and scanned film record less than the theoretical maximum. Digital comes closer to the maximum than scanned film, though.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8906


« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2005, 11:54:35 AM »
ReplyReply

There are some pretty confused arguments here  Cheesy . Of course image resolution has no practical bearing on print size. What determines the maximum print size is the size of the paper your printer can handle; and if you don't mind joining separate sheets together, then you could cover a whole field, or a mountain or the Empire State building with a print, if you wanted to.

But no matter how big or small your print is, if your camera didn't have the pixel density to capture, say a single strand of hair in a particular shot, then no matter how good your lens and no matter how big your print, you'll never see that strand of hair, from close up or from afar.

There are practical limits to the resolving power of sensors and that limit is described as the Nyquist limit which essentially means that one row of pixels is needed to record one line. In practice it's usually slightly more than one row of pixels that's required and there appears to be some variation depending on sensor design and of course the MTF response of the lens used.

As a general rule, if there are two or more contributing components to image quality, such as film and lens, or sensor and lens, the system resolution, or final result, will be somewhat worse than that of the lowest resolving component.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2005, 10:13:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Forget everething about money, the cost of the sensor, memory, hard drives, ram, software, ..
Why? all of those factors factor into cost of ownership, and have to be considered unless you have the unique ability to pull money out of your butt on demand. I'd get a digital MF setup with a 22MP back and all the trimmings to go with it if I had infinite cash. But I don't, so I have a 1Ds.
Logged

Simetra
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2005, 04:18:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I think for general purpose press and PR work that 6 to 12 mgp is more than enough, 16m would be more useful for the production of stock images with A3 file sizes.

I think someday, a radical change will come about the way we capture images, tiffs will be a thing of the past. I would imagine alternative technologies already exist but are being withheld while the world becomes accustomed to digital capture. Just for fun I'll give it a name "Fractal Unified Juxtapose Image" or FUJI for short.
Logged
collum
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2005, 09:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

problem is my choice isn't there. my goal is the largest print i do.. 30x40" @ 240 dpi.. which is about 70Mp

(4x5 replacement). whatever the camera.. i'd still like to be able to attache it to the back of my 4x5 field camera
Logged
Stef_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2005, 09:50:39 PM »
ReplyReply

So essentially what you guys want to do is this only with a single camera. The picture can be viewed here. Don't worry it's not going to kill your bandwith. It's a 2.5 Gigapixel image. Tho, I believe most of you have probably seen it.

Tho why you'd want to do this, I can't imagine. All I could say, is have fun editing a 7.5 gigapixel image.
Logged
Sfleming
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339



WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2005, 06:32:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I guess I'd settle for 50MP.  Leaves me a tad short but  not enough to quibble over.

My fave aspect is 3/4 or 6x8cm.  Mat Board comes 32 x 40.  Given a 4" mat one ends up with 24 x 32 prints.  24 x 240ppi =6720.  32 x 240 = 7680.  6720 x 7680 = 51,609,600.

Did I  do that right?
Logged
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2005, 02:32:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd be contented with whatever it would take to give me a bit better than 8x10 film at best, and with 15 stop latitude and with a network of Crays to process the files fast enough and with an ultra-perfect wall size monitor to see the full image at 100% all the time.  Might as well let Santa know in plenty of time what I want.  If Santa doesn't come through I'd be contented with what I've got and then when something better comes along that I can afford I'll be contented with that.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2005, 10:00:32 AM »
ReplyReply

If the chip had some means of detecting a "filled" sensor photosite, dumping the charge, and incrementing a counter associated with that pixel, dynamic range could be increased almost arbitrarily. Each bit of the counter would add 1 stop of usable dynamic range. In addition, when the most significant bit of any counter flipped from 0 to 1, a signal could be generated to terminate the exposure to brevent clipping.
Logged

Das Bosun
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2005, 05:40:21 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not until we see a 24MP (24MP = 6000 x 4000px) D-SLR that we actually will have a camera that is twice the resolution of a 6MP camera (6MP = 3000 x 2000px).

Consider the clarity & detail which many 6 to 8MP cameras are already achieving... Now double it.  

Another defining factor is the need for 16bit per channel capture in  D-SLRs (12bits is current for most, 14bit for the Fuji S3).  This will help with more dynamic range & greater color depth.

Due to the falling prices of CF cards & blank DVD discs file size  is a deminishing consideration at the capture OR archiving stages.  Even as a raw file shooter I find that with bigger MP (10+ MP) files I still find myself outputing high volume jobs as 3000 x 2000px files in C1.  If a particular image requires substantial enlargement OR cropping, then I return to the raw file & utilize the file at it's highest resolution.  This probably only accounts for 5% to 10% of my workflow.

Das Bosun
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad